Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36630774›Full record

ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2023

Why weight? Analytic approaches for large-scale population neuroscience data.

Arianna M Gard, Luke W Hyde, Steven G Heeringa, Brady T West, Colter Mitchell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Considerations When Accounting for Race and Ethnicity in Studies of Poverty and Neurodevelopment.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arianna M GardInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Cognitive Neuroscience Program, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Electronic address: arigard@umd.edu.
Luke W HydeInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Steven G HeeringaInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Brady T WestInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Colter MitchellInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

TRAINING IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOGRAPHYT32HD007339 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Sarah A. Burgard · 1987 to 2026
$14.9M
TRAINING PROGRAM IN DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGYT32HD007109 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GELMAN, SUSAN A., MONK, CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN · 1985 to 2025
$6.6M
Scientific/Technical CoreP2CHD041028 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Sarah A. Burgard · 2017 to 2026
$6.5M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041028NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007109NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-based neuroimaging studies that feature complex sampling designs enable researchers to generalize their results more widely. However, several theoretical and analytical questions pose challenges to researchers interested in these data. The following is a resource for researchers interested in using population-based neuroimaging data. We provide an overview of sampling designs and describe the differences between traditional model-based analyses and survey-oriented design-based analyses. To elucidate key concepts, we leverage data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development℠ Study (ABCD Study®), a population-based sample of 11,878 9-10-year-olds in the United States. Analyses revealed modest sociodemographic discrepancies between the target population of 9-10-year-olds in the U.S. and both the recruited ABCD sample and the analytic sample with usable structural and functional imaging data. In evaluating the associations between socioeconomic resources (i.e., constructs that are tightly linked to recruitment biases) and several metrics of brain development, we show that model-based approaches over-estimated the associations of household income and under-estimated the associations of caregiver education with total cortical volume and surface area. Comparable results were found in models predicting neural function during two fMRI task paradigms. We conclude with recommendations for ABCD Study® users and users of population-based neuroimaging cohorts more broadly.

Indexed as

BrainNeurosciencesAdolescentHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingABCD Study®convenience samplingGeneralizabilityPopulation neuroscienceprobability sampling

Identifiers

PMID36630774
PMCPMC9843279
OpenAlexW4313644817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.